Note to Bob Herbert: Misogyny is much more complicated!
Herbert's column in the NY Times this morning reprises his claims about the misogyny of prostitution and pornography but in a different context this time and with some unwittingly apt parallels.
Readers of this blog know that I have a very different analysis of sex work, one that doesn't assume that prostitution or pornography are inherently and essentially misogynistic, so I won't reprise that here. (You can get a glimpse of some of that here and here) Instead, I'd like to point out some of the things I think make Herbert's analysis here especially weak, including some false assumptions about causality, and unfortunate parallels to sports and the military.
Let me start with the false assumptions about causality. Herbert seems to be asserting that the existence of pornography and prostitution, as evidenced by legal brothels in Nevada, serve as evidence of the misogyny in American culture that then leads to the epidemic of violence against women. Wrong. Are more wives and girlfriends murdered by their partners in Germany or the Netherlands where prostitution is legal? No. I would say it is our culture of violence that leads to violence of all sorts. (Note: I am not asserting a direct connection between watching violent movies or playing violent video games and committing violent acts. I am suggesting that in a culture where violence and aggression are rewarded, as they are here, that you get more violence and aggression.)
<!-- technorati tags start --><!-- technorati tags end --><!--extended-->
The other problem with Herbert's argument is his assertion that sex work is somehow uniquely problematic. The fact that he uses sex work and pornography as the sine qua non of misogyny tells us that he sees those things as uniquely and irredeemably degrading and dehumanizing to women. One of the bits of evidence Herbert shows us -- again -- from his Nevada trip to support his claim that the brothels there degrade women (and I have no doubt that some are run in degrading ways) is that the women must answer to a bell. Now others have previously pointed out that school kids answer to bells, workers in factories and other locations often answer to devices like bells or buzzers. I bet even Mr. Herbert has a Blackberry or some other device that vibrates or rings in his pocket, and causes a Pavlovlian response where he hastens to comply with some instruction from his employer. Oppressive? Yes. Unique to sex work? Not a chance.
In fact, Herbert mentions the men at the Jets games, which made me think about the way that professional athletes, while much better compensated than sex workers, are also selling the use of their bodies in dangerous circumstances, governed by whistles and commands, for the entertainment of others and the profit of a few immensely wealthy owners and media corporations.
Herbert also raises the very real -- and too little examined -- problem of sexual violence in the military, but again he misses an important connection. He completed passes over the degradation rituals common to military life. Think drill instructors shouting insults at new recruits as they train. Think chants about blood and killing. Think hazing-type rituals as groups are formed and as their members shuffle in and out.
Think leasing your body to a male-dominated institution for a period of years to be used as the leaders of that institution wish. They can send you to another country. They can separate you from your family. They can command you to kill and send you on missions where your chances of being killed yourself are incredibly high. And you can't refuse without breaking the rules.
Think your only option for escape, if they don't want to let you go, is to commit the crime of desertion.
It is all the more clear now that Herbert opposes prostitution and pornography specifically because they are centered on sexual transactions. But degradation and dehumanization in work are problems that are not unique to the sex industry, and the sex industry ought not be uniquely condemned for them.
The Times ran an article on Sunday about the violent crimes committed by returning vets and noted that about a third were committed against spouses, girlfriends, kids or other family members. If Herbert wants to understand the causes of violence against women he needs to look beyond pornography and begin examining the toxic aspects of conventional masculinity -- including the valorization of violence and aggression -- and he also needs to remind himself of the economic exploitation and oppression and hardship facing so many families, including those of returning vets, that cause so much stress and anxiety in people's lives. If he understood the intersection of those problems he'd be much closer to understanding how the misogyny that does still percolate through American culture puts women at great risk.
Technorati Tags: Bob Herbert, sex work, sex, pornography, culture
You nailed it as usual,
Well said, Elizabeth, and said well.
Class
Thanks Amber, thanks Anthony. You know, Anthony, your comment made me think about this book I read ages ago in college -- you know, like back in the late 80s or early 90s -- called "The Hidden Injuries of Class" by Richard Sennett and Jonathan Cobb. It did an excellent job of describing, through interviews mostly, the ways that the US class system harms people, especially working class people.
(Click here for the Google Books page for the book)
It's been a long time since I've read the book, but it strikes me that we're worse off now then we were when it was written.
...because public space really matters!
Elizabeth
The tragedy is that Bob
“Writing is like prostitution. First you do it for love, and then for a few close friends, and then finally y
and not just Bob
It kills me to see the very sharp women at Feministe!, Feministing, and Shakesville all professing their love for Herbert because he speaks out condemning sex work as misogyny.
Since my first gender studies course in college -- which was followed by a Philosophy of sexuality course, a Psychology of sexuality course, a bunch of graduate work in gender, a dissertation on strip clubs, this web site -- I've been fascinated and horrified by the sex wars within feminism. It amazes me that the thing that divides feminists more than anything else is sex, which we've turned into a dangerous thing with "consequences" instead of a pleasurable thing that can be abused.
My orientation to feminism is a sex-radical socialist sort of orientation, and it is one that does not romanticize sex work, but that recognizes it as work that is as dangerous, exploitive and problematic as lots of kinds of work. That it is performed in connection with intimate bodily functions or emotional entanglements does not make it uniquely oppressive. In fact other kinds of work -- nursing, for example -- also involves intimate bodily contact and emotional distance or entanglement.
...because public space really matters!
Elizabeth
two other quick points
about my previous comment:
1. The other thing that makes me mad about the adoration of Herbert based on his anti-prostitution pieces is that it is adulation for poor argumentation. The evidence and logic aren't there. Even if you agree with the position, if you are to be a credible source of online commentary shouldn't you refrain from applauding bad logic or poor evidence?
2. I didn't mean to suggest above that all sex work is only dangerous, exploitive and problematic. It can, under the right conditions, also be rewarding. That those most rewarding of conditions are experienced by the elite of the workforce again is not unique to sex work, but is parallel to many industries.
...because public space really matters!
Elizabeth
Thanks...
The Voices of Sex Workers
I'm sure that Elizabeth has some thoughts of her own, but I'd like to thank you for your comment, Jill, and I look forward to reading your follow-up on Feministe. One of the things that bothers me about the dialogue (and the lack thereof) on sex work is that it's probably the only topic where a progressive viewpoint is taken more seriously on the left when the speaker disregards the voices of the workers themselves. Publications like $pread and groups like SWOP have done remarkable work in organizing women (and men) whose have to stay closeted about how they make their money because it's at best a subject of moral opprobrium and at worst subject to criminal prosecution. At least steel workers or fruit pickers, no matter how badly abused by their employers, could openly say that they were steel workers or fruit pickers, and not suffer the consequences from that fact alone.
The fundamental problem with Herbert's writing about prostitution and pornography has been how blithely he's ignored the voices of the women themselves. Instead, he's depended on Melissa Farley as an authoritative figure, despite the fact that she's been routinely condemned for sloppy, sensationalist research by sex work activists. That Farley's voice can be elevated over those of people who have put everything on the line for their friends and co-workers bespeaks a paternalism that is to be expected from the moralists on the right, but which we as progressives should never tolerate from our own.
And yet, we routinely see it among our own. So much so, that to brush aside the thoughts and opinions of women and men who work as prostitutes, porn stars, pro-dommes, masseuses, and strip dancers imbues the speaker with a certain moral integrity and certifies them as a "fellow traveler" and insures that they'll be heard on Alternet, TruthOut, HuffPo, and the feminist blogs such as Feministe, Feministing, and Pandagon. (All of the above are on my daily read list.) Would Bob Herbert be getting such accolades if he'd spoken to people like Audacia Ray or Amber Rhea, who have more nuanced views of sexuality and sex work? Would he even have gotten it published in the New York Times? Likely not. Unfortunately, this country obsesses over sex like no other, and on both left and right, we seem incapable of discussing the "work" aspects instead of the "sex."
“Writing is like prostitution. First you do it for love, and then for a few close friends, and then finally y
Listening to sex workers
I echo Chris's "thanks," Jill. And please stop by any time. You're always welcome here.
I think one thing that makes it so hard to discuss sex work from a feminist perspective is that it is not a monolithic industry with consistent conditions. Even within a single sector, like prostitution, there is a wide range of working conditions. And within a single sliver of that continuum, workers have different feelings about their work.
The other day Ren at Renegade Evolution was raging about the discussion of the Bob Herbert article in the comments on the "Why I love Bob Herbert" post on Feministe! after having come in from a night of outreach work among street workers. The fact that she was blogging and has a more privileged position among sex workers did not mean that she was deaf to the women and men who are less privileged. In fact, she uses her position as a platform from which to help improve conditions for those who are working the streets.
We need to do more listening across the spectrum of sex workers, and we need discussion and activism that targets the real problems: exploitation, harassment, violence. Further criminalization and prosecution will not make women safer, and it certainly won't make sex workers safer. Instead we need fundamental economic and social change so that poor and working class people have plenty of reasonable options for supporting themselves, we need social safety nets for people who can't support themselves, and we need to shift the way we think about sex so that it is not seen as "okay only so long as it is performed within the boundaries of a loving committed relationship."
If we are serious in searching for economic and social justice, and for sexual freedom and autonomy I think we need to frame sex work as something that, like most work, needs to be restructured rather than eliminated.
...because public space really matters!
Elizabeth
addendum re the Feministe! thread
If you can get over there, and if you can afford the time, do read the thread. It demonstrates both everything that is wrong about the way we talk about sex work (moral panic, accusations, talking past each other) and also, with much credit due to Jill and Ren and a handful of others, everything that is right and optimistic about how we can talk about sex work when we really really try.
Jill, you do a good job with tough issues. Kudos.
...because public space really matters!
Elizabeth
Kind of related...
On a somewhat-related note, if anyone at any of the "big" blogs like Feministe wants to shine the light on this fucking asshole Steve Gower (and the assholish reporting by Creative Loafing), please do... The CL reporter was at the Int'l Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers event, which is where he learned about Gower. He talked with several current and former sex workers and sex worker rights activists, yet did not include any of their voices. (Article)
Sorry for kind of spamming the thread here, Elizabeth. But I do think it's related and I'm STILL livid about it. I'm also not exactly happy w/ the fact that Gower's org is also responsible for Sex 2.0 losing our venue.
That Doesn't Count as Spamming
Spamming is when you try to sell us cheap hard-on drugs or mediocre porn. Reporting on wankers who spend their time harassing and endangering sex workers doesn't count. As it happens, I have something in the tube about Gower. I'm just trying to focus my rage and hatred so that it comes out as something more intelligent than FUCKING!!! ASSHOLE!!!
The perplexing thing about Gower is that he's apparently a gay man himself. How often do you see gay men so obsessed about what women do with their naughty bits?
“Writing is like prostitution. First you do it for love, and then for a few close friends, and then finally y
Post new comment