tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4343658614010405479.post4981749538102544232..comments2024-03-29T05:46:39.542+00:00Comments on Penny Red: Pre-protest faff-laden filk-off-athon of doom (or: why the London feminist scene is quite depressing at the moment)Penny Redhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07677315565893516941noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4343658614010405479.post-31626147392846359812009-11-25T15:05:57.163+00:002009-11-25T15:05:57.163+00:00(Oh, apparently I'm not actually linking to my...(Oh, apparently I'm not actually linking to my blog properly. It's a Livejournal one. Should be fixed now.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4343658614010405479.post-78226832630943539142009-11-25T13:23:01.641+00:002009-11-25T13:23:01.641+00:00Building on what Snowdrop just wrote -
I was tryi...Building on what Snowdrop just wrote -<br /><br />I was trying to think of examples where women or women's bodies are sold, as opposed to their labour power. I don't think even slavery covers this, because what is being sold there is potential labour power.<br /><br />But surely the paradigmatic case of the exchange of women-as-such is marriage as an exchange between fathers? Either when this is associated with literal dowry/bride-price, or when it results in more intangible, less immediate benefits, such as creating a sense of obligation and cementing ties between family groups.<br /><br />This is obviously an anthropological commonplace, much analysed by Levi-Strauss (RIP), but I don't want to make the point that this is an archaic practice. It seems to me that in capitalist society, it should logically happen more among the bourgeoisie (and indeed the monarchy and residual landed aristocracy), since they actually have property to transfer between the generations, whereas the proletariat, which only has its labour power, does not. <br /><br />Does this mean that marriage is inherently a bourgeois institution, and the cross-class embrace of it is a case of false consciousness...? The franticness with which the tabloid press and gossip magazines are obsessed with celebrity 'dynastic' marriages, would seem to suggest that it requires a massive industry to try and make this system seem desirable to the mass of the working class population. This is what Deleuze and Guattari mean when they talk about the reterritorialization of desire onto the family, I think.<br /><br />The point I am driving at is that we should still take seriously the commodification of women, but realise that it is a process distinct from, and even diametrically opposed to, the commodification of sex as specific kind of work.<br /><br />The idea that 'sex is not work' and 'prostitution commodifies women' actually obscures the real relations by which women are commodified. And furthermore these latter relations are necessary for maintaining class structure, which is reproduced through patriarchy. <br /><br />Of course, I can conceive of class structures which are reproduced other ways, e.g. a clerisy of celibate priests with initiation rituals, or a bureaucracy, for example. Presumably the theory of 'state capitalism', which I have never really studied, relies on the latter. So the link between patriarchy and capitalism is contingent, but very deeply entrenched in 'the west'.<br /><br />I am sure I am only poorly regurgitating an argument that has been made more cogently by various feminist authors in the past, though I think I have picked this up piecemeal rather than from any one source I could name.Bennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4343658614010405479.post-60791721228726667912009-11-25T13:21:30.664+00:002009-11-25T13:21:30.664+00:00Infighting? Shocking! Who would have thunk it?Infighting? Shocking! Who would have thunk it?Vanilla Rosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07946634138308342764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4343658614010405479.post-37352409776758749202009-11-25T07:17:52.870+00:002009-11-25T07:17:52.870+00:00@Dandelion:
As for the prostitution thing, I thin...@Dandelion:<br /><br /><i>As for the prostitution thing, I think if you go around hurting other women (by perpetuating the myth that women's bodies are a commodity), then you can't *really* complain if you yourself get hurt in the doing of it. And if you behave as if your body is a commodity for men's pleasure, then you can't *really* complain if men treat you like that.</i><br /><br />Well, that's all very well, and mainstream Hollywood actresses be warned accordingly, I guess, but it's not relevant to the issue of prostitution, since women's bodies are not for sale in prostitution (sex-trafficking notwithstanding): what is for sale is a service, just as an accountant or plumber offers a service.<br /><br />Saying "if you behave as if your body is a commodity for men's pleasure, then you can't *really* complain if men treat you like that. " is in no way feminist: it's just another version of Patriarchal slut-shaming, and harmful to all women (because in the Patriarchy, EVERY woman is expected to put a price on her sex, just it's usually charged in terms of roses, meals, a home to live in etc). If you won't stick up for prostitutes' ability to do what they do without fear of harassment or violence (and you stated implicitly that you won't, because you said "you can't *really* complain if you yourself get hurt in the doing of it") then you are also implicitly saying that violence against all women is fine unless they all live up to some impossible feminist ideal.<br /><br /><i>There really is no such thing as a sex-worker, because sex is not work.</i><br /><br />This statement is purely a matter of opinion, but the fact is that when male or female persons exchange their labour hours for financial recompense, that is "work" in the commonly accepted sense. In prostitution, those labour hours are used to provide sexual services (which does not involve "bodies as commodities", does not involve "selling their bodies", any more than any other physical labour does).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4343658614010405479.post-60775007478916192082009-11-25T04:33:37.909+00:002009-11-25T04:33:37.909+00:00Oh, OK then. Thanks!
(longer response post is up...Oh, OK then. Thanks!<br /><br />(longer response post is up on my blog, which is an edited version of comments here. I don't feel the need to fracture the conversation over to there though - I don't update that thing often enough for hits and comments to make any difference to me)McDuffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04787282124319171752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4343658614010405479.post-91497608720528529332009-11-25T02:25:21.800+00:002009-11-25T02:25:21.800+00:00Will respond to the rest when I've slept - but...Will respond to the rest when I've slept - but I wasn't thinking about deleting your comment! It was Dandelion's I hesitated over...Penny Redhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07677315565893516941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4343658614010405479.post-32346769127557416732009-11-25T01:34:19.725+00:002009-11-25T01:34:19.725+00:00Penny
I think you would have been OK to delete it...Penny<br /><br />I think you would have been OK to delete it - it was an emotional, gut response and could have stood a pass through for moderation. I'm working on a post for my blog about that kind of attitude where I can more reasonably expect to get away with copious amounts of profanity.<br /><br />That said, the emotional response still stands.<br /><br /><i>The problem as far as sex work goes is that we live in a culture that shames women sexually - all women, not just sex workers, but sex work has become the symbol of that shame and that abuse. I think for many feminists there's a real dilemma in how to tackle that shame and still support sex workers.</i><br /><br />They're two different issues, though. The problem you're going to have in applying a Zeroth Law of feminism - as people like Dandelion do - where the rights of some women to be free sexual agents can be curtailed as long as it pushes forward some social agenda, is that the society that is expected to emerge is not the society that will emerge.<br /><br />Fun fact: people gonna fuck.<br /><br />Fun fact two: people fuck weird.<br /><br />In the universe where women, transfolk and queers are not only legally equal but socially equal too, it's not a world without sex work at all. Unless you think that women, transfolk and queers are incapable of being consensual perverts just like the rest of us, that should be self evident. Rather, it's a world where sex work is rather more populated with outfits like <a href="http://nofauxxx.com/public/mission" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">No Fauxxx</a> and people like <a href="http://www.buck-angel.com/blog/index.php" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">Buck Angel</a> and <a href="http://www.wakingvixen.com/blog/" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">Audicia Ray</a>.<br /><br />Rather than dismissing such people as exceptions and "the myth of the happy hooker", we should be realising that actually it's possible for sex work to be a force for good, and at the very least is just another aspect of society that reflects what we put into it, not just for women but also for other marginalised groups.<br /><br />I don't know what you think can possibly be gained from grilling people who use hookers about their motives. You might find out some weird shit, but so fucking what? So some guy's got mommy issues and he's struggling to work it out in the arms of a woman who's perfectly happy to do so for him in exchange for £400 a pop. It doesn't benefit the hooker, the punter, or you to pry into the dark seedy underside of people's sexuality, especially if you're going to put an accusatory tone on it, any more than it would to dive into people who watch consensually made porn, people who dress in diapers and get their wives to spank them, or people who exclusively have missionary position vanilla sex with the lights off because the idea of putting someone's genitals in their mouth is weird and freaky to them. Yes, there are aggressive misogynist fuckers who use hookers, but there are a lot more who are just a bit outside the norm.<br /><br />What will benefit everyone is not lining up with the child-rapists in the catholic church to sign up for a government mandated "EW YOUR SEX IS DIRTY AND WEIRD!!" campaign. It only drives the "freaks and weirdos" into the dark along with the hookers who profit from them and the guys who want to get their rape on.<br /><br />So, I am afraid if you think Clause 14 was even close to promoting a more equitable and just world for the vagina-havers out there, I'm sorry to tell you that once again you have been sold a bill of goods.McDuffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04787282124319171752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4343658614010405479.post-41325918106074132352009-11-24T23:56:40.293+00:002009-11-24T23:56:40.293+00:00Alice - I'll happily claim that your work on t...Alice - I'll happily claim that your work on the Welfare Reform Bill has been a stellar example of how this sort of organisation can and should work. <br /><br />I remember that meeting very differently. I'm aware that I'm very sensitive to raised voices and angry words. The key difference almost certainly remains the prioritising of individual ideology on the part of Feminist Fightback - and maybe that's a difference we can't work around. I was deeply unimpressed by the results on that particular occasion and others, but my agenda is different from yours.Penny Redhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07677315565893516941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4343658614010405479.post-10031438520264301532009-11-24T23:53:16.157+00:002009-11-24T23:53:16.157+00:00McDuff - Thank you for your comment, and I'm g...McDuff - Thank you for your comment, and I'm glad you took down Dandelion so forcefully along with others. I was hovering over deleting it, but I thought I ought to let it stand so we can see some of the views we're up against.<br /><br />I don't believe that accepting payment for sex with a man is any sort of betrayal of sisterhood, and I don't believe that prostitution is abuse by its very nature. I think the situation is hugely more problematic than that - I was having a very interesting debate with Belinda Brooks-Gordon about this tonight, and she agrees with me. <br /><br />The problem as far as sex work goes is that we live in a culture that shames women sexually - all women, not just sex workers, but sex work has become the symbol of that shame and that abuse. I think for many feminists there's a real dilemma in how to tackle that shame and still support sex workers. Feminists need sex workers and sex workers need feminists, that's true - but I think it's natural to question whether we can automatically support all sex work as a service like any other when, at the moment, it so clearly isn't. It should be - but in a culture which has so much shame and misogyny associated with sex, it still isn't. My ideal isn't a culture where no sex work occurs, but one in which prostitutes - along with all other female workers - are respected, honoured, offered police protection, defended from rape, well-paid and unionised. But I'm not sure this ideal world can be achieved through decriminalisation alone - the root of our sexual shaming of women and prostitutes needs to be tackled, and feminists can and should work together to do this.<br /><br />I believe in total decriminalisation of sex work - noone should EVER be punished for selling sex. But I do believe that, within a culture that condones abuse of prostitutes and frames prostitutes as less than human, men who use the services of prostitutes deserve questioning at the very least. Even if that questioning makes some sex workers' lives harder - and had Clause 14 been combined, as it should have been, with a lessening of the sanctions against women who sell sex, this might actually have happened.Penny Redhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07677315565893516941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4343658614010405479.post-39595307853084476562009-11-24T22:47:21.292+00:002009-11-24T22:47:21.292+00:00Dandelion:
"There really is no such thing as...Dandelion:<br /><br />"There really is no such thing as a sex-worker, because sex is not work. <i>A feminist who thinks it is, is no kind of feminist at all.</i> This is a really important point of disagreement that really does need to be resolved before feminism's going to get anywhere at all." [emphasis added]<br /><br />Er, did I miss something, or isn't this kind of 'my way or the highway' argument where Penny's post started? What happens once the disagreement is 'resolved' (presumably by excommunicating all the women who argue that sex work <i>is</i> work - along with any actual sex-workers - from any claim to the term 'feminist')?<br /><br />[redpesto]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4343658614010405479.post-13004458979792537712009-11-24T21:55:54.744+00:002009-11-24T21:55:54.744+00:00As someone who was there at the meeting about the ...As someone who was there at the meeting about the abortion support network Laurie cites above (and the person responsible for keeping a paper copy of all FF minutes, which helps immensely with recollections!)I feel the need to correct some of the most glaring factual inaccuracies. <br /><br />The idea of providing practical solidarity to Irish women coming to the UK for an abortion was an idea that was raised at a FF meeting in late 2008. As a group, we were thinking about ways in which we could move forward with our work on reproductive freedoms following the failure of the relevant amendments to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill to be heard. People in the group were aware of the abortion support networks that operated in the 1980s, and it was therefore exciting to us when a member of the group discovered that there was a woman who has been involved in a similar network in New York who was thinking about organising something in London.<br /><br />We first emailed then met Mara in January 2009 and talked about the way that the network had worked in New York, and about the research we needed to do to look at the viability of a similar UK-based network. We met on an equal basis, with both Mara and Fightback members contributing ideas and energy into the process. Discussion and meetings continued in early 2009 prior to the meeting in April which Laurie cites.<br /><br />Yes, our discussions prior to the April meeting meant we were all aware of differences in approach to the network. These were around sponsorship (and the issue of corporate involvement); means testing; different models of support for women (a 'welfarist' conception as opposed to a network based on solidarity amongst womeen - an important political question for FF); and the structure of the organisation. This was coupled with the fact that Mara had by this point decided to work full-time on the network (not something any FF members were in a position to do) and consequently was in a much more influential position in terms of key decisions given the large amounts of time and energy she was putting into the network. The relationship had certainly shifted from our initial meeting as equal partners back in January. I won't go into these issues (which were, without apology, political questions for Fightback members) here, for reasons of time and space. But what was clear to me is that the discussions on them were held in a mutually respectful way, and whilst it was increasingly clear that Mara's ideas for the network were different enough from ours for us to feel this could not be a major Fightback project, we did not 'angrily refuse to offer ...help'. On the contrary, we have advertised the network on the FF list, and Fightback members are involved in setting something up in Manchester. <br /><br />For me, FF feels like a space very different from the one described by Laurie above. I am impressed both by the supportive atmosphere and the level and quality of debate at meetings, and by the open approach to collaborative working (as seen by this year's Gender, Race and Class conference and our work in opposing the Welfare Reform bill).Alicenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4343658614010405479.post-80993179356780352632009-11-24T20:41:08.559+00:002009-11-24T20:41:08.559+00:00Dandelion - A few points.
I believe that the fe...Dandelion - A few points. <br /><br />I believe that the feminists that support the criminalisation of the sex industry endanger and therefore 'hurt' women. I do not however, hiss, push, scream at or otherwise bully those feminists when I come into contact with them.<br /><br />In arguing that women cannot complain about abuse or exploitation if they work in the sex industry you deny sex workers the right for justice if they are raped or otherwise physically or verbally assaulted. In doing so, you do women a violent disservice and 'hurt' women. It also disproportionately discriminates against working class women - who tend to be the women who work in the sex industry - as they are not, you argue, deserving of protection and justice as other women are. <br /><br />A couple of theoretical points which you confuse:<br /><br />1) Any activity in which you exchange labour for money is work. Even some activities in which people labour, but money is not exchanged, are work. These are pretty well established feminist arguments. It is not clear why the sale of sexual services would not be work in the context of the commodification of knowledge, creativity and other forms of intimacy. <br /><br />2) Apart from under conditions of slavery, women cannot be a commodity. Only women's (and men and children's) labour power can be a commodity. There are multiple ways in which labour power is sold which involve the commodification of sex and sexuality. These include paralegals, airline stewards and a vast array of other service sector jobs, if not most forms of women's work. The sex industry is not a separate phenomenon divorced from all else, it is just a particular crystallisation of structures and processes at work across other labour sectors and social spheres.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4343658614010405479.post-29511213906089039462009-11-24T18:57:13.357+00:002009-11-24T18:57:13.357+00:00As for the prostitution thing, I think if you go a...<i>As for the prostitution thing, I think if you go around hurting other women (by perpetuating the myth that women's bodies are a commodity), then you can't *really* complain if you yourself get hurt in the doing of it. And if you behave as if your body is a commodity for men's pleasure, then you can't *really* complain if men treat you like that.</i> <br />Respecfully: cry me a river, you victim-blaming, arrogant prick. <br /><br />Sex workers neither want nor need any "feminists" like this. There are actual women's lives at stake here, and you dare - you <i>DARE</i> - to put your high-minded, middle class bollocks political position of who hurts whatever noble interpretation of how decent women should behave you thought up above their lives?<br /><br />Who the holy loving FUCK are you to decide which women are entitled to the basic protections of the law and who aren't? Who are you? Other than someone who believes that if sluts get raped it's their own damn fault?<br /><br /><i>It's not anti-feminist to object to the views of women who want to fight for the right to participate in and perpetuate a culture where women are commodity for men's pleasure.</i><br /><br />Maybe not. However, a) that's hardly the be-all and end-all of the sex industry, b) to the extent that it is the majority of the sex industry it remains so mostly because of prudish, patriarchal buffoons legislating the rights of women who dare to be sexual agents away, and c) the "views" of such women are not what is being affected by this legislation; the "rights" and "safety" of such women is. Ergo, you and your brand of so-called "feminism" can fuck right off. QED.<br /><br />I prefer the kind of feminism where I fight for the right of women to be treated as equal human beings under the law, regardless of whether they behave in a way I approve of. You don't see me arguing that you should have to be an insufferable, prudish, supercilious cock in hiding and out of the watchful eye of the law lest you get raped by a policeman, do you? Well then.<br /><br />What beggars belief is not only that you think things like Clause 14 are worth it no matter how many sex workers dislike it or suffer as a result. You actually think it's a blow against the patriarchy too, don't you? Making more women's lives miserable because you disapprove of what they do with their sexual agency. *golf clap* Yeah. Well done. That's a stunning blow against the forces of patriarchy there. Keep it up and you'll make all the sex workers in the UK miserable, and then it magically won't exist any more! Is that how this is supposed to work?<br /><br />This is why we won't ever be on the same side of the issue. I don't <i>want</i> a middle ground with asinine, high-falootin, victim blaming bullshit like this. There isn't any compromise with such insufferable, <i>privileged</i> blathering.<br /><br />You might not think sex workers are workers (THEY ARE, IDIOT! THEY FILE TAX RETURNS AND EVERYTHING!!) but your position treats them as if they're not people. And then you dare claim it is US who are not feminist? You rampaging jackass!<br /><br />Oh, and if you're upset by this: you won anyway. Sex workers - actual women - have to live with the consequences of your victory. Maybe it's all our fault for supporting things you don't agree with, maybe suffering is deserved, Old Testament style. If that's the case, I think you can cope with having people tell you what they think of you, with much, much less invective than I could possibly muster, don't you? After all, it's not as if I'd change your mind by being reasonable, since I've accepted payment for sex with a man, and am therefore destroying the world and don't qualify as a full human being with the right to an opinion on such things. So I might as well make myself feel better in your brave new world by calling you a bastard.McDuffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04787282124319171752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4343658614010405479.post-15692556932611014122009-11-24T18:45:09.589+00:002009-11-24T18:45:09.589+00:00Speaking of feminists attacking other feminists......Speaking of feminists attacking other feminists... Dandelion, you say we need to address our disagreements (true), but then go on to say anyone with a non-abolitionist position on sex work isn't a feminist in the first place! <br /><br />Arguing your point is one thing, declaring for yourself the right to decide who is and isn't a feminist, based on your own positions, is an example of the bad behaviour around disagreements, not of open debate.Sofiehttp://www.feministfightback.org.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4343658614010405479.post-13134412671575743982009-11-24T16:39:58.723+00:002009-11-24T16:39:58.723+00:00In your original post, you use a direct quote from...In your original post, you use a direct quote from the Feminist Fightback Steering Committee email list. (You also use a quote "The only people we hate more than the patriarchy are the London Feminist Network!!!" which was NOT said by anyone in Feminist Fightback, though it may appear from the context as if it was).<br /><br />There was recently an email sent around the list reminding people that the list is a safe space. This means that whatever is said in the list is confidential and should remain so unless permission to publish is given by everyone involved.<br /><br />It is crucial that the list remain a safe space. In order to foster genuine debate and internal democracy, members have to feel they can be completely honest; if they believe their comments may be published, this honesty will be inhibted. Furthermore, members should not have to worry that a stray comment, perhaps said in jest or in the heat of the moment, will be held up as representative of the whole group.<br /><br />The confidentiality of email lists is common etiquette within all activist movements. Please do not reproduce anything written on the email list again unless you have the permission of everyone on the list.<br /><br />Thank you,<br />The members of Feminist FightbackFeminist Fightbackhttp://www.feministfightback.org.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4343658614010405479.post-19186401104859251962009-11-24T11:54:24.048+00:002009-11-24T11:54:24.048+00:00Just a misunderstanding Ben - actually it was repr...Just a misunderstanding Ben - actually it was representatives from FF who were invited to meet with Mara to see how they could help her project, rather than Mara being summonsed to a group meeting!Penny Redhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07677315565893516941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4343658614010405479.post-7897354158596253102009-11-24T11:43:39.259+00:002009-11-24T11:43:39.259+00:00I think two separate issues are getting confused h...I think two separate issues are getting confused here. From what I can see on feminist fightback's website it is 'anti-capitalist' (going by the 'about us' page). Therefore it seems perfectly legitimate to me that they should debate whether or not to collaborate with another group/organisation that takes private funding.<br /><br />What seems to have offended Mara and Penny is that this debate was had in Mara's presence, after inviting her to a meeting, whereas she might legitimately have expected that FF had already resolved such a debate before meeting her.<br /><br />For Penny to say "it's not about you and your politics" seems both wrong and right, to me:<br /><br /> FF are a political organisation, so everything they do *should* be determined by their politics. But this dispute seems like it was not determined by political differences, but an *organisational* mistake, i.e. bringing somebody from another group in before they were agreed amongst themselves whether to help her or not.<br /><br />Feel free to tell me to butt out if I have completely misunderstood or if you don't feel this kind of 'clarification' is helpful from somebody who wasn't there at the time!Bennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4343658614010405479.post-73416561922067809442009-11-24T10:38:01.206+00:002009-11-24T10:38:01.206+00:00'The very idea for the network was in it's...'The very idea for the network was in it's initial stages and at the time it WAS about us and our politics. Of course it was - this is where the idea emerged from.'<br /><br />No Rachel darling - the idea didn't emerge from Feminist Fightback. Mara, who organised the group, had already run a similar network in New York based on the original networks in London run in the 1980s, and by the time the meeting was held most of the plans were in place and good to go with or without Feminist Fightback. Mara simply wanted to know if she could count on your help or not. I know this because I stayed behind afterwards to apologise to her for the really extremely rude and hostile manner in which some of the attendees talked about what they didn't want to see in the group. <br /><br />I don't know how many times I can say 'it's not about you' before you'll understand - but guys, it's not all "about you and your politics". Really, it's not. If you believe it's about you rather than about winning justice for women and building solidarity across borders, then I really do despair for the future of the movement.Penny Redhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07677315565893516941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4343658614010405479.post-57996219529937167012009-11-24T10:09:48.004+00:002009-11-24T10:09:48.004+00:00Yeah, that is good to hear Gwen. I'm a bit sur...Yeah, that is good to hear Gwen. I'm a bit surprised that this issue is a point for debate though... <br /><br />I'm sure i was at the meeting you mention Laurie, and I don't remember FF 'angrily refusing' to do anything. The very idea for the network was in it's initial stages and at the time it WAS about us and our politics. Of course it was - this is where the idea emerged from. As far as i remember there was concern about the effects of private funding, and people saw this as limiting in many ways as opposed to helpful, because straight up service provision was not really what we had in mind for our role - but reasons aside, I don't remember this as an 'angry refusal' at all. I don't even remember FF going as far as 'opposing' it. In fact what i clearly remember was FF members saying that private funding and the kind of service that Mara wanted to run was useful in it's own way, but it wasn't the kind of activity we had imagined for ourselves. <br /><br />I understand Laurie, that you feel put off by FF's tactics and ideas. And i appreciate that the issue of sex wok is particularly hostile ground for debating on. I could spend time arguing for the position, action and vision of FF (which i support) but seems like it might be pointless - it seems you interpret even our smallest critical consideration as 'angry refusal'. I feel quite sad about that. Maybe I was at a different meeting. ??? <br /><br /><br />Best, RRachaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4343658614010405479.post-43944616429590863242009-11-23T21:37:27.136+00:002009-11-23T21:37:27.136+00:00Well yes, but what about all the other nights of t...Well yes, but what about all the other nights of the week? What about all the feminists attacking other feminists that happens every other night of the year (even sometimes on this blog)? It's a good point, Penny R, but you should take your own medicine first, I reckon.<br /><br />And actually, if we do respect eachother as women and as people, then we do need to address our disagreements.<br /><br />As for the prostitution thing, I think if you go around hurting other women (by perpetuating the myth that women's bodies are a commodity), then you can't *really* complain if you yourself get hurt in the doing of it. And if you behave as if your body is a commodity for men's pleasure, then you can't *really* complain if men treat you like that. <br /><br />It's not anti-feminist to object to the views of women who want to fight for the right to participate in and perpetuate a culture where women are commodity for men's pleasure. <br /><br />There really is no such thing as a sex-worker, because sex is not work. A feminist who thinks it is, is no kind of feminist at all. This is a really important point of disagreement that really does need to be resolved before feminism's going to get anywhere at all. Shouting at people to agree, or to ignore the points of disagreement is not the way forward, I don't think. Women are passionate about this point, on both sides of the debate, for a reason.Dandelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12302932867084357713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4343658614010405479.post-19143497924152117452009-11-23T20:14:44.350+00:002009-11-23T20:14:44.350+00:00That's good to know, Gwen. I was still shocked...That's good to know, Gwen. I was still shocked that FF would - even initially - put opposing private sponsorship before helping women need. It struck me that the abortion aid question is one where it is really, really, NOT about us and our politics.<br /><br />I'm not trying to have a specific go at FF here - just responding to questions that come up. I actually think that LFN are behaving worse in this situation, particularly given what I've found out since writing this post about how people in the red umbrella contingent were treated (spat at by other feminists? FFS.)Penny Redhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07677315565893516941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4343658614010405479.post-47044217132637556202009-11-23T20:06:29.314+00:002009-11-23T20:06:29.314+00:00WRT Irish women seeking abortions in the UK, Femin...WRT Irish women seeking abortions in the UK, Feminist Fightback was upset because the organiser was seeking private sponsorship. However, we're still organising the network, as I've been involved in setting up the network in Manchester.Gwenhttp://highonrebellion.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4343658614010405479.post-2012941038812151652009-11-23T17:17:09.558+00:002009-11-23T17:17:09.558+00:00To quote an actual sex worker: "giving us the...To quote an actual sex worker: "giving us the right to say yes automatically gives us the right to say no".<br /><br />The biggest trouble with the pro-clause 14 feminists is that they don't help women. Sorry to put it so very, annoyingly bluntly, but criminalising prostitution has been tried. All the various ways of legislating it out of existence have been tried. Protecting women by making what they do illegal has been tried. It does not work. It does not help.<br /><br />Lying about the difference between a migrant sex worker and a trafficked woman does not help: it robs the migrant of this elusive thing called "agency". Remember when it used to be important to point out that women were full human beings with agency? This, I find, is still true even if they're selling sex.<br /><br />Talking about sex work as if the only kinds of sex work are "Belle du Jour" or murdered crack-addicted hookers on the street does not help. It ignores and marginalises the majority of sex workers - most of whom happen to be women. Remember when it was a bad thing that women's voices were marginalised? I'm not sure it's astoundingly feminist to ignore the voices of women in order to "save" them - that sounds pretty damned paternalistic to me.<br /><br />You can argue that people shouldn't get angry with the objectively wrong side of the movement if you want, but you know? They should. Sex workers were arguing that the new law would hurt them. The other side argued that it didn't matter, there was their own keen sense of moral outrage to consider. The actual, real lives of actual, real women were considered expendable in order to fight another already-lost battle about whether the patriarchy or the matriarchy should get to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. They worked with the patriarchy to win a pyrrhic victory over some crude symbols to send messages a particular subset of the liberal establishment wishes to send to those who do things with their genitals they morally disapprove of, and in doing so they harmed women.<br /><br />You get to do your job just as safely today as you did before the law was passed. Thanks to the new laws, many women do not. I think there's a right to be pretty damn angry at the so-called "feminists" here. I think there's a right to point out that they can label themselves whatever they like, but they failed to speak for the women most affected by this law, and they failed to help them, and they failed to protect them, and in general their approach was a massive, paternalist sack of fail.<br /><br />And if you think that's divisive, who cares? Why *would* sex workers seek unity and common ground with people who demonstrably don't care about them? What benefit would that bring?<br /><br />If you're on the wrong side of the "harming women" argument - that would be the "pro clause 14" side, the one that harms women - you're just on the wrong side. Calling people out for being rude to you is pointless, because you deserve to have people be rude to you. You're on the wrong side.<br /><br />The wrong side, to reiterate, being the one that harms women in order to send a message about how you shouldn't harm women.McDuffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04787282124319171752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4343658614010405479.post-73262956584596296972009-11-23T14:01:04.130+00:002009-11-23T14:01:04.130+00:00Hmm, not really much point in replying, given we h...Hmm, not really much point in replying, given we have entirely differenty conceptions of what FF is and does (for example, it's far from 'narrow' or 'vituperative', points which you had ample opportunity to raise with us incidentally). But there's two points where you've totally misread (I would hope not purposefully) what I've written.<br /><br />Firstly, on the Policing and Crime Bill, it's ridiculous to reply to my rebuttal of your point that LFN et al have made decriminalising sex workers their first goal by saying, basically "yeah but you didn't do anything about those clauses either". It's not only factually inaccurate (read about John McDonnell's amendments, or any of our literature on the topic), but it lets LFN off the hook for supporting a Bill that *makes life worse for sex workers*. I don't want to be overly cynical here, but I suggest this is because any other response would mean having to stop drawing a level distinction between FF and LFN with yourself as a sensible arbiter inbetween, and thus destroy the point of your post.<br /><br />Secondly, on this idea that I think 'feminists will never agree' - I've never said this, not in this form at least. I think it's utopian to believe we'll always agree on everything, and it's politically naive to think it's 'mudslinging' to criticise each other's points of view, particularly when they're diametrically opposed in terms of tactics, policy and outcome. You may think groups have "narrow ideological bases" but isn't a group essentially just a set of people who come together over common ideas (that 'narrow' base) to fight for the tactics they think are correct?<br /><br />You seem to believe there's a binary opposition between winning victories and getting people to believe you're right, which fundamentally separates tactics and politics. They're the same thing. I want people to think my ideas are the right ones because I think they're right, in the sense that they are the ones that will liberate women. I'm not saying these will never change or grow in the course of debate, but there'd be little point in politics at all if you weren't trying to convince people about something you yourself are convinced of.<br /><br />I appreciate that this back and forth in the comments may come off as hostile, but I'm genuinely surprised at the apolitical nature of what you're suggesting; down-playing fundamentally opposed viewpoints in order to have some uberfeminist group who work together on some stuff but just don't talk about the rest. Like the rest of the left, the problem in feminism isn't that we discuss and debate and disagree, but the manner in which we do it, and in which it is received (see SWP, ad nauseum). I think I can understand your frustration, but seriously, some things demand you get off the fence.Sofiehttp://www.feministfightback.org.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4343658614010405479.post-55689388949883123222009-11-23T11:41:53.449+00:002009-11-23T11:41:53.449+00:00Sofie,
One of the reasons the bill went through a...Sofie,<br /><br />One of the reasons the bill went through as it did is that everyone - FF included - focused on trashing the opposition over Clause 14. If we'd concentrated even some of our energies on, eg, combatting the odious Clause 15, much more might have been achieved for women. I call that shameful behaviour all round, but at least LFN and Object had something they were actually fighting for.<br /><br />Like LFN, FF has done good work that doesn't involve mud-slinging matches with other feminist groups, and I don't mean to belittle that. In fact, FF's politics match closely with my own, which is why I joined the group in the first place: I believe that class, race and background affect feminism at every level, and I believe that fighting for feminism cannot be achieved without also fighting for the rights of workers, immigrants, ethnic minorities, sexual minorities and disabled people within a patriarchal capitalist system. What has dismayed me to the extent that I'm now looking for another feminist base is that FF refuses to entertain any politics which differ from its own narrow ideological base - even if that means letting down women in the process.<br /><br />The final straw for me was when I attended a meeting with the new abortion support network in which FF angrily refused to offer their help to vulnerable Irish women seeking terminations in London - because Mara had sought funding from the FPA, which we disapproved of, I can't quite remember why. It was at that point that I realised that this was no longer 'my' feminist space.<br /><br />I am a socialist, but I am not prepared to ask women to wait for the revolution to demand their personhood and liberty. I believe it's more important to win victories for women of all classes, races and ages than to have everyone acknowledge that I'm right, which is why I don't feel I fit in with FF or, in fact, with LFN, at the moment. I know that you 'want young men and women coming into the feminist movement to agree with you' - but until you let go of this narrow-minded, vituperative way of doing politics then fewer and fewer of those young men and women will be won to your cause. Just a quick scan of the comments above might remind you how many women, even confirmed feminist women, are put off activism altogether by this attitude from FF and other groups.<br /><br />You can't 'fight within the movement for what you think are the right politics' - and I agree with the bulk of your politics - if you also declare, as you have above, that 'feminists will never agree'. What you are saying is that *only* your particular feminist politics are workable, and you will only accept a feminist movement wherein everyone first acknowledges the rightness of your ideology. Well, I'd like a solid gold strap-on, but that ain't gonna happen either.<br /><br />I believe that fighting patriarchy and fighting capitalism are one and the same, and that to do so we need to be smart, we need to be strong, we need to plan a long game and we need to identify common enemies.Penny Redhttp://pennyred.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.com